KerikBalm

The thing is, that AN had been there for 7 years... I imagine that fireworks come and go. The question is if hte people who put the fireworks there even knew that AN was in the warehouse. I can imagine that it was just lying there, not conspicuously labelled, and people just forgot that it was there, and normal day to day port operations went on. Its a port, and I don't think lebanon manufatures its own fireworks (but they use them for various celebrations... they like to have big parties - I've been in Beirut and went to a Lebanese wedding, I actually staying in a hotel that would have been within the damage area - but probably just shattered glass, there don't seem to be any building collapses that far from the explosion). So, a shipment of fireworks comes in to the port, where do they offload it? into the warehouse... was anyone involved even consciously aware that there were thousands of tons of AN stored in that warehouse?

I agree, initial reports were talking about stored fireworks, and the numerous flahses support this. Well, according to what I read (if I remember correctly), its kind of ironic. Someone saw the appalling conditions in which this was store, there was a report citing several issues: the report cited short term issues and long term issues. In the long term, they needed to get rid of the stuff. In the short term the report said that there was poor security, and some door didn't even close properly/there was an opening in the warehouse. So the lebanese government was at least addressing the short term issue, and ordered that the door be fixed to increase security in the short term, and the welding was related to fixing the warehouse. I wish I can recall where I read that, I'd cite it... but it seems that they were aware of the issue, and were actually taking a first step to address it, when they caused the explosion.

@mcwaffles2003 Well, I am not expecting more stars in ksp2 than planets in KSP1, so I am expecting like 3 or 4 other star systems, not 10, but its all speculation. Other star systems need not be as large as the kerbal's system, and having a large home system could be good for gameplay progression, letting you experiment with some designs on the way to interstellar ships, that just go to a Sedna analogue (or hypothetical planet 9 analogue)

Yea, but we're talking half the planet's surface area. Sure we can have glacier from the dark side flowing to the terminator/light side, and then melting. In that case, you expect the seas/lakes to be around the terminator, not the side facing the sun. As you note, the amount of water does matter... but you could get a whole lot locked up on the dark side. You could also have a thick atmosphere, somewhere between Earth and Venus, then it won't even freeze on the dark side... But as shown, that planet should not be tidally locked

I for one would like to see an expanded Kerbol system, something like the OPM mods. Eeloo transfers can be faster than Jool transfers, and Jool really isn't that far. Hohman transfers are practical to Jool, solar power is still usable, its really not that far. Contrast that with OPM's Neidon or Plock... Throw in an Eris or Sedna analogue. Stock KSP is great for portraying space travel amongst an inner solar system, but solar systems are a lot bigger than what is depicted in KSP 1. If we are going to be going accross the vast distances to reach other stars, we should also be able to cross less vast distances to visit outer solar sstem bodies Can't we do both? they only need to have a handful of stars representing nearby stars, not a whole galaxy. A whole galaxy is clearly too much, and completely impractical with the type of tech that they've shown (something a few to several light years away is a different story than 100,000 LY away). The stock KSP system seems like its missing a lot. I want scattered disk objects, I want a sedna analogue, those would be great uses of some of the more high end drives, without going interstellar.

And we go in circles again. Before posting again, please read through the thread and see if your points have already been raised and addressed, because this is ridiculoud As already mentioned, a metastability of picoseconds (as mentioned) is not worth discussing in the context of using mH as a rocket fuel Nobody said that. Understanding hte interiors of gas giants has value. Refining models for high pressure physics has value. Its superconducting potential has value even if its not metastable. No, its entirely inaccurate under every context that you go on to mention, and every foreseable context so far. Such statememnts make me wonder if there is a polite way to say that you clearly do not understand the subject, and you should educate yourself much much more on the topic before returning. An often omitted phrase, for brevity, is substantially metastable to the point that it would be an attractive alternative to simple chemical rockets. i can even point to a 2016 paper that predicts some metastablity in the 10-20 GPa range ( https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.02593 ). The thing is that this does not agree with the 2019 and 2017 observations (if it doesn't agree with experimental evidence, its irrelevant), and that's predicting metastability at pressure that were though to be required to form mH in the 1970s, which were already known to be too high to be practical (thus metastability would be needed to allow storage at much lower pressures than that) The thing is, if stronger materials are discovered, it doesn't apply to just mH tanks, it applies to everything, and its still not competitive: Note that modern tanks have propellent:dry mass ratios of about 30:1. The Space shuttle main tank was pressurized to 250 kPa. That is 40,000x lower than 10 GPa. Using the (disproven in light of 2019's experimental evidence) 2016 prediction would require a tank 40,000x stronger, and since these things have a certain strength to mass ratio, and they try to make them as light as possible, it follows that it would require a tank 40,000x more massive. The ratio becomes 30:40,000, or a full:empty mass ratio of 40,030:40,000, or 1.00075, while a standard tank has a mass ratio of 31:1. Now you should be familiar with the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation. Given an Isp of 1700s (dubious, as thats for what I cal the PSM^2 engine, which has even more problems), the maximum dV of a hydrolox rocket at 455s and a 31 mass ratio is: 9.81*455*ln(31)=15,327 m/s. For a metallic hydrogen rocket with a tank with a mass ratio of 1.00075, and exhaust that will melt the engine, the dv is: 9.81* 1700 *ln(1.00075) = 12.5 m/s Now, lets assume we make a tank with a strength to weight ratio 1,000x stronger than what we have now, the mass ratio is then (30+40)/40 = 1.75, and maximum dV is 9,332 m/s... not even 2/3 of what the hydrolox rocket gets, meanwhile the hydrolox rocket with such a tank can get a 30*1000:1 mass ratio... 30,000, giving it a dV of 46,014 m/s. Ok, so now the hydrolox is only outperforming the mmH by about 5:1, instead of 1,000:1 Lets say our tanks are 10,000x stronger, and mmH is stable down to 2.5 GPa, now we get a mmh tank mass ratio of 34:4, or 8.5...resulting dV is now: 35,690 m/s... now we're talking... except... wait, thats still less than the hydrolox can get with a tank made of materials 1,000x weaker... what would the hydrolox get with this new material? the mass rato is now 300,000... and the dV is: 56,292 m/s So even if we could make tanks that are have a strength/mass ratio 10,000x higher than what we have now, and if mmH was metastable down to 2.5 GPa, the hydrolox rocket would still get more dV... This is why I consider metastability that would bring the pressure down from 415 GPa to 2.5 GPa to be "insufficient" It never was, please actually read the thread before posting in it. That was ages ago.... you may be referring to the "what tech belongs in KSP 2" thread, which is still there. Please stop making more posts that just show your haven't read the thread or what you are replying to, leave this drivel here outside.

You are incorrect. There is no metastable liquid hydrogen, and it does not exist at ambient temperature and pressure. That is why liquid hydrogen tanks have so much insulation, and why ice chunks fall of during launches Yes, I do, and have cited multiple times, but heck, one more time: https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.05300

If there is any water on the light side, some will evaporate until there is enough water in the atmosphere to reach equilibrium (when the water vapor pressure in the atmosphere equals the vapor pressure from the water). If there is water vapor in the atmosphere, it will spread to the dark side. If it spreads to the dark side, it will condense and freeye. All water would end up on the far side as glaciers.

Or maybe those larger estimates are wrong, based on what it could be if there were never any other nearby stars - and the lower estimates on the order of 0.5 LY are closer to the actual situation.

Well, a potential problem with tidally locked planets and habitability, is that all the water would tend to get locked up in permanent glaciers on the dark side. If the atmosphere isn't thick enough to start, a similar thing can happen and cause atmosphere to collapse. CO2 freezes on the dark side if it gets as cold as it does on Mars... and then nitrogen can follow... And you have no atmosphere, just ices on the dark side

I like the idea of using telescopes to discover nearby systems. I also think the in depth telescope building could be interesting, but.... I don't really think it fits with the scope of the game. I'd vote for whole part telescopes, that each serve a purpose (detect comets and asteroids, detect star systems with exoplants, give more information about the exoplanet before arrival, etc)

@The Doodling Astronaut Thanks, at least they acknowledge that it shouldn't be possible.

I see no such thing, and the earlier video of this planet disproves this

Provide the quote please... Because I don't recall that.

So many people want it to be tidally locked, but as it is, it has polar ice caps, which indicates that it is not tidally locked to a star. It could be a moon of a gas giant, I suppose (I'd rather not though), and tidally locked to the gas giant.

I for one like the new minmus, the flats look like lunar maria. The changes to dres and minmus are so extensive, that the unknown red planet may just be duna

No, its not tidally locked, yes its a crater. It has polar ice caps, this wouldn't happen if it was tidally locked to its star. If they make it tidally locked, I will not buy ksp2... Straw that broke the camels back and all

Regardless of the apparent time it has been experiencing, the number of orbits it has experienced should agree with the number observed by a person in orbit (cant be in orbit of the planet... Same gravity, so an orbit really high above the BH, that sure us some dV). So if the waves on the surface come every hour, that implies a 25 year orbit. If the orbit of the BH is something mire reasonable, then the surface would see the waves coming very very fast. Either way, I don't think you can get out of the tidal locking problem

At the risk of diverging from the topic, I think many regulations are too conservative, and mainly serve to keep competition away from the pharma giants. Regulations can prevent a generic manufacturer from coming out with a drug for long after a patent has expired, or force the generic manufacturer to spend nearly as much money as the patent holder did, too open the drug up to all the generic market (ensuring that they will never recoup their investment) And the PV system, often way overdone IMO. Good for the Russians for not letting over conservative regulations from stopping them from addressing a public health crisis.

On a related note, I want to know how it would handle a fully recoverable 2 stage design. Will it be able to account for the recovery of the 1st stage?

Umm no, it would not work like that, especially given how shallow the ground was, the distance of the wave... And you know, the lack of wind when they landed.

If it was tidally locked, the waves would be standing still and not moving across the surface

Well since Ganymede is tidally locked, L1 and L2 (and 3,4,5) would be stationary relative to the surface of Ganymede, and not so far from the surface. Active station keeping would be needed, but the station would effectively be a giant solar sail.

Well, we know mars has Thorium: https://mars.nasa.gov/odyssey/gallery/latestimages/PIA04257.html Uranium on the moon (not surprising) https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.space.com/amp/6904-uranium-moon.html As for asteroids, they are undifferentiated, so they should be more homogeneous, but that means lower more uniform concentrations: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0039914068800311 Certainly, it would be easier to mine it somewhere that geologic processes have concentrated it. Also, the overall metallicity of other star systems may be very different. A distant star system may have very low metallicity, and fissionable material may be rare/non-existent... But nearby stars should have similar metallicity, so if the kerbol system has fissionables, the other systems should have some too

Not sure which time point in question, but I think planet shine has already been confirmed, and minmus should have a nice blue kerbin illuminating its night side at times Not necessarily melted (the rock too? Liquid water is melted) at the side facing the star. But it has polar ice caps, so that wouldn't happen if it was tidally locked.